Are there situations where the deliberative, reasoned approach to problem solving fails?
Michael Yon wrote a blog that covered the US Army activities in Iraq. In August 2005, he wrote an entry that described Lt Colonel Kurilla’s apparent extrasensory ability to spot insurgents from amongst the din and bustle of urban Mosul:
“Some months back, a new lieutenant named Brian Flynn was riding with the Kurilla for his first three weeks, when Kurilla spotted three men walking adjacent to where Major Mark Bieger and his Stryker had been hit with a car bomb a week prior. The three men looked suspicious to Kurilla, whose legendary sense about people is so keen that his soldiers call it the “Deuce Sixth-Sense.” His read on people and situations is so uncanny it borders the bizarre.
That day, Kurilla sensed “wrong” and told his soldiers to check the three men. As the Stryker dropped its ramp, one of the terrorists pulled a pistol from under his shirt.”
Did Lt Colonel Kurilla have a unique talent? It seems not.
US Army officer training has traditionally been based upon ‘rational analysis’. Whereas in the field, they are engaged in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments and they need to be able to evaluate and respond to critical situations under extreme pressure. These are situations where there isn’t time to deliberate or to ask for advice - they rely on their intuition. The US Army has since instigated a programme to improve junior officer’s intuitive capability. (report)
Organisations tend to rely on ‘rational’ problem solving processes because it is ‘logical’ - but some problems are qualitative rather than quantitative, and need a different approach. We have other problem solving capabilities apart from our reason.
We need to be bold enough to trust in them.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment